D&D 5E 5E low level monster skill checks

[DND_Reborn]

How do monsters even use the Intimidate skill? Is that really worth an action or better to just ATTACK and let that be intimidating Like a bugbear chief has intimidate +2. I can't remember ever using these skills

We actually had this happen somewhat early on in our game. The bugbear chieftain used his intimidate to frighten some of the PCs who failed in their WIS save versus the bugbear chiefs intimidate skill check. It also bolstered the other bugbears and made the combat pretty intense. Of course, we were lower level then.

Our last session was raid into a complex of gnolls. We're 9th level now, and you might think it would be cakewalk... well, it wasn't "hard" but we had to do a lot of planning, avoid large groups, stealth/scout the best path, take prisoners to get intel, and more. Even then, it was still hard at times.

All in all, the best of PCs should beat the best of monsters, but most PCs aren't the best. One or two might be very good with perception, but many others aren't.

In an ambush encounter, don't use the best roll for the PCs. Each lives and dies by their own roll. Our first rounds typically have one or two PCs unable to act due to surprise when ambushed.

I know our DM inflates some skills when making checks vs. PCs, but not a lot. He also grants proficiency to monsters that should have them on a case-by-case basis. However, I agree that some of this seems like laziness from the devs not to give monsters 2-4 skills by default each. It isn't hard to do on the fly, but should have been included from the get-go IMO.

 

[S'mon]

In a similar vein the party bard was delighted by what he could accomplish with his crazy bonuses

My interpretation of 5e native balance is that it was consciously set to easy mode, and I believe that is the correct setting for the default. For one thing it is better for new players and some rp focused groups. If right, MM creatures are as intended.

For me and people I play with, system mastery makes easy mode feel not quite right. Possibly that is part of what the OP is experiencing. Game difficulty is subjective and it is not at all more virtuous to play on a hard mode (which may be subjectively equivalent to easy in any event).

Thus as DM I can suggest a way to respond to a feeling of monster skill values offering insufficient challenge. But I would not say that a group is any more or less admirable for chosing to play or not play that way.

With more experienced groups, and higher level play, I definitely do use 'ringer' monsters - maybe from Tome of Beasts, or a converted Pathfinder stat block - with powerful abilities. Like the ancient blue dragon with access to multiple Shield spells & Animate object, a suitable challenge for a group of level 19-20 PCs. But I don't think Hard Mode or Legendary Mode should be the default. Default 5e feels like Skyrim on Adept Mode (ie, pretty easy if you don't create purposefully nerfed PCs), and I think that's the right approach.

 

[S'mon]

Our Battle Master never questioned orcs having Athletics, but he did question the one time I gave a quadropedal demon a special ability making it very hard to shove.

I think my players are ok with both - and I do give monsters additional Proficiencies quite often, I just don't include it as part of the default/base monster stat block. If I think a monster's stats feel 'wrong' I'm more likely to use Advantage or Disadvantage or situational modifiers, like giving flying birds a +5 AC or a flat AC 20 vs ranged attacks.

Edit: And of course per RAW, darkness is supposed to impose Disadvantage on spotting attempts with Darkvision (=> dim light), which would be -5 to the PP. Take 5 off the PCs' PP and give the hidden lurker Advantage on its stealth roll, and even a +3 starts to look decent.

 

[S'mon]

Most secret doors in published campaigns are more like DC 15.

The worst case was from Out of the Abyss, where the designer tried to describe a DC 10 door as "secret".

That really tells me that dev was on another planet. DC 10 means any random Commoner will detect it.

DC 10 is more like a regular door partially behind some old furniture - you COULD miss it, but only if you were distracted or drunk.

Your DC on the other hand tells me volumes: it means you have left the official guidelines behind and fixed what was broken.

I only wish you didn't have to, and that the game's skill scores wasn't borked in the first place.

Well I think those DC 15s or 10s are for active searching, not just "you walk down the stairs/open the door, and spot it". I don't think there are any official DCs in the DMG for spotting secret doors, just the Easy - 10 Moderate - 15 Hard -20 etc guideline. Spotting a secret door with a casual glance looks like Very Hard to me, so DC 25. And I probably got the DC from converting a Paizo adventure - divide Pathfinder DC by 2 and add 5 usually gives a good 5e DC, so eg a PF DC 50 would be a 5e DC 30 (Nearly Impossible).

Edit: Mind you the PC who spotted that door was something like Rogue-18; in my low level adventures there are plenty of secret doors more like DC 20. One thing I often do is roll for the spot DC, perhaps on d20+10.

Edit 2: I guess if I see "Secret door, DC 10" in a published adventure I'll likely make that "10 if searched for, 20 to notice with PP". Which I guess is 'fixing' it, but something so easy & trivial it doesn't take me any conscious effort.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well I think those DC 15s or 10s are for active searching, not just "you walk down the stairs/open the door, and spot it". I don't think there are any official DCs in the DMG for spotting secret doors, just the Easy - 10 Moderate - 15 Hard -20 etc guideline. Spotting a secret door with a casual glance looks like Very Hard to me, so DC 25. And I probably got the DC from converting a Paizo adventure - divide Pathfinder DC by 2 and add 5 usually gives a good 5e DC, so eg a PF DC 50 would be a 5e DC 30 (Nearly Impossible).

Edit: Mind you the PC who spotted that door was something like Rogue-18; in my low level adventures there are plenty of secret doors more like DC 20. One thing I often do is roll for the spot DC, perhaps on d20+10.

Edit 2: I guess if I see "Secret door, DC 10" in a published adventure I'll likely make that "10 if searched for, 20 to notice with PP". Which I guess is 'fixing' it, but something so easy & trivial it doesn't take me any conscious effort.

Funny you should mention active searching. The DCs should be the DCs, no matter how you are using them. You shouldn't have one for active and another for passive, etc. IMO (and by default, you don't as I understand it). That's why I think passive checks should be based on 5, not 10.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well I think those DC 15s or 10s are for active searching, not just "you walk down the stairs/open the door, and spot it". I don't think there are any official DCs in the DMG for spotting secret doors, just the Easy - 10 Moderate - 15 Hard -20 etc guideline. Spotting a secret door with a casual glance looks like Very Hard to me, so DC 25. And I probably got the DC from converting a Paizo adventure - divide Pathfinder DC by 2 and add 5 usually gives a good 5e DC, so eg a PF DC 50 would be a 5e DC 30 (Nearly Impossible).

Edit: Mind you the PC who spotted that door was something like Rogue-18; in my low level adventures there are plenty of secret doors more like DC 20. One thing I often do is roll for the spot DC, perhaps on d20+10.

Edit 2: I guess if I see "Secret door, DC 10" in a published adventure I'll likely make that "10 if searched for, 20 to notice with PP". Which I guess is 'fixing' it, but something so easy & trivial it doesn't take me any conscious effort.

Official WotC adventures practically never go above DC 20 for anything.

It sends the message "everything is pathetically easy" for the focused character.

Again, any sensible home DM would apply common sense. I see you have done precisely that. I just wish official guidelines were based in the same reality as characters created from the Player's Handbook...

 

[S'mon]

Official WotC adventures practically never go above DC 20 for anything.

It sends the message "everything is pathetically easy" for the focused character.

Again, any sensible home DM would apply common sense. I see you have done precisely that. I just wish official guidelines were based in the same reality as characters created from the Player's Handbook...

OK, it sounds like there is maybe a problem with official adventures, not the PHB (or DMG difficulty guidelines). I've not run a lot of official 5e adventures, but am running Princes of the Apocalypse currently. The group is pretty laid back and non-minmaxy, pretty much exactly what WotC thinks of as their target 5e audience I suspect. After 6 levels/8 months of play I've not encountered a problem on the DCs yet, but the endgame content certainly does look very easy for mooted levels 13-15; lots of DC 10-15 checks, as you say, and endboss monsters that a well built level 15 PC could likely solo.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Official WotC adventures practically never go above DC 20 for anything.

It sends the message "everything is pathetically easy" for the focused character.

This, the "focused character", is one of the reasons we switched expertise to advantage instead of doubling proficiency bonus. With expertise, pretty much many things were pathetically easy...

 

[S'mon]

With expertise, pretty much many things were pathetically easy...

I think this may be deliberate as a reaction to 3e - the 5e edition really favours breadth over depth, and there is not much point beating a check by 15 or 20. Low DCs mean that non-focused PCs can often succeed, and group stealth checks become worth attempting.

It looks like PF2e is taking the opposite approach, which makes sense.

 

[Oofta]

When it comes to published adventures, they do set the bar pretty low from what I've seen. Which I don't have a problem with. They're assuming it can be a group of casual players with no feats or magical items. They don't assume there's going to be a skill monkey in the party.

So yes, they shoot for the lowest common denominator because the expectation seems to be that an experienced DM will adjust as necessary. But they aren't writing for the experienced DM, they write for the novice DM, and the novice group.